User talk:REHopkins

Welcome!

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, REHopkins, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in Kate Ashley references section

Comments and discussion about an article should be on the article's talk page, not in the article mainspace. Your comments have been moved there. Also this IP address appears to be being used by User:REHopkins, please ensure you are logged in when editing to avoid any accusations of Sock puppetry.--RadioFan (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Additional Evidence" in Elizabeth I talk page

I just wanted to inform you that I've shifted your text to the bottom of the talk page, so that it can be more easily found. Just look at the table of contents, or right at the end of the page. (When opening a new discussion on a talk page, always go to the bottom). I have also replied to some issues you mention. Buchraeumer (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Parry

I assume that you are IP 8...Please log in! I assume that the original sources you gave alongside the page numbers of Richardson were those that are given in that book. So you don't have to repeat them there, it's just o.k. giving the page numbers to Richardson's book. That's why I removed them. You now have reverted all what I did on the page, so it is now as you left it yesterday or so. I also altered or shortened the text somewhat for reasons of NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (NPOV), which is one of the pillar's of Wikipedia. For example that paragraph where you explain the new book simply has no place in an article, it would perhaps belong on the talk page . It's perfectly fine to use the book as a source, only don't praise or describe it in the article! I try to give another example of POV:

"This is compelling evidence from the lady who was with Elizabeth on a daily basis. If it was not true Blanche would simply not have mentioned it for this was Blanche's testimony to God. Indeed, as Blanche never married she was perhaps a role model for Elizabeth." You understand that this is advancing a position, you would have to write in the text that author X says so and so, not yourself, for example. Please read very carefully the WP pages on "Neutrality" and "Original Research" ("Reliable Sources" is also useful). You can find these pages on the Wikipedia main page clicking on Help, for example. Regarding that Blanche Parry was one of the closest persons to Elizabeth, no one denies this; but you (or Richardson) deny that there were some other persons who were also very close to her. There are very good sources for that also. Please read the guidelines: superlatives (closest) should not have a place in an encyclopedia. Buchraeumer (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I saw your marvellous work on Blanche Parry, and I thought I'd give you this barnstar - a Wikipedia award from one editor to another, given to individuals who display particularly fine decisions in general editing. The Cavalry (Message me) 11:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]